Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

The nearby history museum has plaques in the sidewalk outside. There is a new one with an image of the Confederate memorial that reads:

Quote:

History underfoot 1914
Can the past tear us apart?
Forest Park's most controversial Monument was the Confederate Memorial unveiled in 1914. St Louis had been torn apart by the Civil War and many residents objected to a commemoration of the secessionist cost.
Missouri History Museum

__________________"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern

I'm saying this is yet another pointless semantic hair split for Confederate apologist that I have zero intention of entertaining.

I'm done being herded to some strawman of "The Civil War was not 'about racism' unless every single Southerner was cartoonishly super-villain level racist and had zero other motivation and every Northerner was a perfectly flawless demi-God with an exactly modern concept of racial relations."

How is it apologist? I think it makes you significantly more evil to abuse others for personal gain rather than a terrible interpretation of morality.

By primary sources did you mean like the states's documents on reasons to secede? I have read them before. I have regularly brought them up when talking to people that think it was about states rights or that slavery would have ended peacefully.

You can't have a discussion about causes or what something is about without litigating what it means for something to be a cause.

Bull. I'm not going to let you bring this discussion to a screeching halt until I somehow empirically prove that "Cause and effect" is a thing to your satisfaction.

This nonsense is really making discussions impossible on this board. This "Prove you're not a brain in a jar before you dare try and tell me Bigfoot doesn't exist" argumentative downgrading nonsense at least used to be confined to the Woo topics but more and more it's everywhere.

__________________(Formally JoeBentley)

"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

I have no idea what you are talking about. Let's look to the lessons of history.

The Nazis had an ideological belief that they were better than the Jews, who they saw as devils and thieves, and used as a rationale for stealing the possessions of the Jews.

Likewise, the Confederats had an ideological belief that blacks were inferior and that their slavery was not only practical for the South, but moral, just and beneficial for black people.

Heck, the Catholic Church used ideological belief as a mechanism to gain power and wealth for centuries.

Honestly, it's rare for a successful ideology to not result in power and wealth.

Or are you suggesting that the South didn't have an ideological belief in slavery, despite all the primary sources saying exactly that?

You listed a bunch of things that are ideological beliefs (claimed, at least) that are not actually about ideological wealth and power. An example of ideological wealth would be "pray for wealth" churches.

Bull. I'm not going to let you bring this discussion to a screeching halt until I somehow empirically prove that "Cause and effect" is a thing to your satisfaction.

This nonsense is really making discussions impossible on this board. This "Prove you're not a brain in a jar before you dare try and tell me Bigfoot doesn't exist" argumentative downgrading nonsense at least used to be confined to the Woo topics but more and more it's everywhere.

There are a wide range of skeptics on this forum. Since a lot of discussion is about things being true, there is constant litigation of the philosophy of truth. The "meaning of is" has real implications.

There are a wide range of skeptics on this forum. Since a lot of discussion is about things being true, there is constant litigation of the philosophy of truth. The "meaning of is" has real implications.

But that doesn't mean every conversation should be brought to a screeching halt because some navel gazer wants to play "Wise Old Man on the Mountain."

__________________(Formally JoeBentley)

"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

-slavery as an ideological cause where slavery is a valuable ends to itself

-slavery as a mechanism to generate wealth

-slavery as a mechanism to create a lower social tier to boost your own relative status.

Only the first one is actually about slavery. The other two are about wealth and relative social status.

Slavery is a social status, and the existence of slavery is about wealth )as well as relattive social status). Slaves were possessions, and were included in the inventory of wealth enumerated by their owners.

They also contributed to wealth by working without remuneration beyond their keep, and being unable to change their employers in search of better conditions of life. They could be sold, in the United States, because they were legally chattels.

The attempt to distinguish between wealth on one hand and slavery on the other is a distress signal, indicating intellectual desperation on the part of anyone ill-advised enough to embark on such a preposterous argument.

Huh funny. As if you are keeping one set of argumentative standards for yourself and one for everyone else.

No, I am not. As I said, you are free to do with my response as you wish. If I specified you had to react a certain way to my response, that would be applying a standard. Recognizing my comment doesn't meet that standard, I acknowledged it doesn't dictate any action.

No, I am not. As I said, you are free to do with my response as you wish. If I specified you had to react a certain way to my response, that would be applying a standard. Recognizing my comment doesn't meet that standard, I acknowledged it doesn't dictate any action.

Much in the same way that my evaluation of your position as intellectually dishonest, doesn't require you to dig yourself in any deeper?

__________________"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern